- Keynotes

- Cramer - IGBP perspective, PIK experience (30 min)

- Prince - GPPDI, NCEAS (20 min)

- Olson - Background: NPP and driver data for EMDI (20 min)

- 12 models, 15 min each = 3 hrs

- Hibbard - Discussion of Workshop goals and products(40-60 min)

- 5 original questions

1. How does the simulated NPP compare with the data? (Kucharik)

2. How sensitive are models to site-specific climate? (?Braswell/Schloss)

3. Does additional mechanistic detail in models result in a better match with field measurements? (Galina Churkina/ Mac Post)

4. How useful are the measures of NPP for evaluating model predictions? (Prince)

5. How well do models represent regional patterns of NPP? (Olson)

- which questions look promising based on initial results?

- are there new questions to be formulated based on initial results?

Breakout groups - 2 or 3 questions at most at a time

- New breakout groups to address other questions

- review of progress of all groups, (expect an outline of the analysis/paper from each group)

- breakout groups - regroup as appropriate

- Initial Comparisons with multi year data

- Great Plains Sala low-average-high NPP data - Parton

- Walker Branch 6 years of forest data - ORNL

- Transient Data

Flux towers - Law/Hollinger

Dendro -?

Inventory - Jenkins

- Other possible data to include in EMDI-2

hydrology

- late afternoon - breakout groups or paper writing

- compile EMDI lessons learned - data, models

- EMDI-1 papers, schedule, etc.

- EMDI-2 planning

This is a simple question that can be answered by this exercise. We anticipate that analyses will be performed by comparing simulated to observed by biome/ecosystem type, climate space with simple scatter plots, regression analyses (Wilmott-D statistics (RMS, MSE, ME); investigating model deviates from the data - do they act in concert? We will also examine abiotic (e.g. AET) versus NPP from individual models.

A sensitivity analysis will be performed to determine whether model results differ if driven by long-term average versus transient climate/NDVI inputs.

Or, if modeled 'total' NPP matches field data, how does the allocation patterns with respect to above and belowground match the field data? In the context of question #1, an analyses of simple versus mechanistic models to identify key 'lumped' or summary parameters in the models that can be used to evaluate light, water, and nutrient constraints on canopy processes, photosynthesis, and hydrology. This is a simple versus complex question.

One of the objectives of the GPPDI was to develop a robust technique where sites that had measured total NPP could be used to estimate total NPP for sites with incomplete (e.g. lacking belowground) measures of NPP. Similarly, GPPDI addressed how well is peak standing crop as generally used for a proxy for observed NPP in grassland?

This question is designed is to test the integrity of the actual measured data against simulations. Components would include above and belowground biomass, litterfall, plant functional type from biogeography models and biomass in wood production as well as soil C, soil respiration, NEP, LAI, and ET from the flux tower sites.

Model output and regional data for 0.5º grid cells will be compared to address this question. Regions include the US eastern deciduous forest; US Great Plains; Queensland, Australia; and potentially other regions.